2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). The instant crime was committed by the Defendant with a favorable disease, which is a dangerous object, due to the victim’s head, resulting in the victim’s bodily injury requiring approximately three weeks of medical treatment, and the victim’s severe punishment is the victim.

However, the defendant had no record of punishment until the age of 60 as a person with a disability in the fifth degree, and this case seems to have caused contingent crimes under the influence of alcohol by the defendant.

In addition, when comprehensively taking into account the Defendant’s age, family relation, health status ( chronic kidney, urology, etc.), economic circumstances (beneficiary of basic living), and circumstances leading to the instant crime, etc., the lower court’s sentence cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion or to be unfair due to excessive flaging.

3. According to the conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition.